Why I am probably not going to Uganda anytime soon...

[Satya]

We should declare war on the US, and stop their stupidity.

I wish I could disagree with you, but I found out from reading that Exodus International was actually invited to Uganda a month before this happened and they held a conference which some sources are citing as inciting this law. Fundamentalist Christian Americans may actually be behind this and the thought perturbs me to no end. This is the vision that Conservative Evangelicals have for America. Of course, they will publicly deny it, but this is the glory they seek by living within Biblical literalism.

 

[Kavalan]

There is a difference between preventative action, which is what you are suggesting vs stopping an action already in effect, plus the holocaust went past Germany's borders into Poland, increasing the range by going past domestic.

The only difference is in the preventative case if it goes awry people can ask was it worth it? Compared to entering a nation after atrocities have occurred and be ridiculed as to why we didn't act sooner?

This line of politics is a total crap shoot as no matter what you do you're pretty much going to be hated by someone.

To the OP this is atrocious and and shouldn't be tolerated.

 

[Cog]

What action in effect? All that has happened is a law has been proposed. A law which would allow them to execute homosexuals.



So it would have been perfectly fine for Germany to eradicate the Jewish element as long as it only did so within Germany?



What does this have to do with economics? This is an issue of human rights.



What about it?



Eliminating a tyrannous leader who gassed his own people? Sounds good to me. We should have done it in the first war.

Sorry about the edits, but to make it clear, if they decided to pass this bill, what should we do about it? Block trade which would starve out the people? Overthrow their government for (assuming it passed) popular bill?

Not that I support their actions one bit but what can be deemed acceptable or not acceptable is highly subjective and can be taken to a point where it can be a forum of economics in that "capitalistic countries are cruel and deny the safety nets we would like", I predict bad trends following under such.

Plus many world powers still have their hands dirty, yet are able to get away with it because they have power, best to fix our problems first.

Edit: In regards to Iraq, people get the government they earn/deserve, forcibly placing one upon them has caused several problems in the past (which the US has done to many other countries)

 

[bamf]

International pressure to reverse such bills can be highly effective. A countries reputation on a national (and continental) scale can be a huge factor in the outcome of bills.

And right/wrong is subjective but there are universally accepted undeniable human rights. Being sentenced to death for sexual orientation is a violation of said rights.

 

[Raccoon Love]

Populations around the world are allowed to vote on what they want and how they want their society to be constructed, that is their business, not mine, suggesting otherwise says that we have an equal say within their government or society, (edit) and I know that they don't have a say in ours, nor do I want them to)

If the majority vote on it, would you see it fit for us (rest of the world) to intervene, and construct their laws for them, in a way that we have deemed appropriate?

This is absurd, No matter if the majority might agree to this law in the country, it does not give the country the right to violate basic laws that are imporant for any indivdual to have, one should not be arrested for sexual orientation or any sort of other personal attributes which do not harm society in any way, that's un-ethical, inreasonable, just because someone is a minority does not give anybody the right to violate their rights as a person. The person who expresses homosexual preferences did not necesserely kill, raped,stold, or commited any sort of crime..so why should their be arrested for life?for some preference? Homosexuality is not a problem in any way, if you took away all homosexuals from Africa..guess what? AIDS will still be massive, because homosexuality is not the issue, the issue is that many people are ignorant to this virus. You cannot give the same life sentence to someone for their sexual orientation to someone who has killed someone, inmoral, one should noteven be fined like most of these countries do. Just because your lucky to live in a free country does not mean you should not care about what other people in other countries are suffering..what if you were one of them living in Africa right now? how would you feel? Your stuck in a place, where you cannot express who you truly are, you either have to hide your self or be imprisoned, how nice....and you still don't care?

 

[Cog]

The only difference is in the preventative case if it goes awry people can ask was it worth it? Compared to entering a nation after atrocities have occurred and be ridiculed as to why we didn't act sooner?

This line of politics is a total crap shoot as no matter what you do you're pretty much going to be hated by someone.

To the OP this is atrocious and and shouldn't be tolerated.

What if we make things worse?

During WW2 we supported the communist in Vietnam and other parts of the world to weaken Hitler

 

[bamf]

What if we make things worse?

During WW2 we supported the communist in Vietnam and other parts of the world to weaken Hitler

 

[Satya]

Sorry about the edits, but to make it clear, if they decided to pass this bill, what should we do about it? Block trade which would starve out the people? Overthrow their government for (assuming it passed) popular bill?

Realistically, America will not do a damn thing. We do business with countries that have a death penalty for homosexuality every day. Saudi Arabia for one. What America can do and what America should do are entirely different things.

Not that I support their actions one bit but what can be deemed accectable or not accecptable is highly subjective and can be taken to a point where it can be a forum of economics in that "capitalistic countries are cruel and deny the safety neats we would like", I predict bad trends following under such.

Bullshit. This is an issue of human rights. This has nothing to do with capitalism and trying to assert some sort of slippery slope fallacy that it does is absurd. At best your argument is a red herring.

Plus many world powers still have their hands dirty, yet are able to get away with it because they have power. Best to fix our problems first.

I find it ironic that you would have little problem with going to Uganda and giving them your money, either as a tourist or business. It sends a very clear message to me that you don't value the basic human rights of homosexuals. Frankly, the response I would have expected from an American capitalist such as yourself would have been something along the lines of, "I would never do business with any US company that does business with Uganda" assuming you actually cared about basic human rights for homosexuals.

Personally, I'll make it a point to find out the name of every US company that does business with Uganda and refuse to do business with them here, and I'll make sure to spread the word to others to do the same. US businesses have no place in such a country. If other countries want to get their hands dirty then they can do so. Apparently we just don't share the same values.

 

[Cog]

This is absurd, No matter if the majority might agree to this law in the country, it does not give the country the right to violate basic laws that are imporant for any indivdual to have, one should not be arrested for sexual orientation or any sort of other personal attributes which do not harm society in any way, that's un-ethical, inreasonable, just because someone is a minority does not give anybody the right to violate their rights as a person. The person who expresses homosexual preferences did not necesserely kill, raped,stold, or commited any sort of crime..so why should their be arrested for life?for some preference? Homosexuality is not a problem in any way, if you took away all homosexuals from Africa..guess what? AIDS will still be massive, because homosexuality is not the issue, the issue is that many people are ignorant to this virus. You cannot give the same life sentence to someone for their sexual orientation to someone who has killed someone, inmoral, one should noteven be fined like most of these countries do. Just because your lucky to live in a free country does not mean you should not care about what other people in other countries are suffering..what if you were one of them living in Africa right now? how would you feel? Your stuck in a place, where you cannot express who you truly are, you either have to hide your self or be imprisoned, how nice....and you still don't care?

You mistake my isolationist views for supporting theirs, tis not the case, but the tendency of the US to interfere in everything will always be based on such, every international action for whatever underlining cause will be based off of some perfect cause.

If the world decides to forcible change their laws, kudos to the people, then it happens, though my stake in the matter is not that great.

My fear in the matter is a loss of national sovereignty to world bodies.

 

[Kavalan]

During WW2 we supported the communist in Vietnam and other parts of the world to weaken Hitler

 

[bamf]

You mistake my isolationist views for supporting theirs, tis not the case, but the tendency of the US to interfere in everything will always be based on such, every international action for whatever underlining cause will be based off of such.

If the world decides to forcible change theirs, then it happens, good for the people, though my stake in the matter is not that great.

My fear in the matter is a loss of national sovereignty to world bodies.

1. If you're going to say the US has a tendency to interfere with everything, you need to prove it. Also, "tendency to interfere with everything" isn't exactly possible. Either they do or they don't interfere with everything; they can't have a tendency to usually interfere in everything.

2. So you feel safe in saying that national sovereignty is above basic human rights? If that's the case it's a matter of personal opinion but for your sake you better hope you never find yourself in a country with an oppressive regime that is targeting you for something as harmless as sexual orientation. By your logic, the rest of the world had better just sit by and watch.

 

[Kavalan]

You mistake my isolationist views for supporting theirs, tis not the case, but the tendency of the US to interfere in everything will always be based on such, every international action for whatever underlining cause will be based off of such.

If the world decides to forcible change theirs, then it happens, good for the people, though my stake in the matter is not that great.

My fear in the matter is a loss of national sovereignty to world bodies.

The last time we were an isolationist country was during the early years of WWI... selling arms and material to both sides no less. That didn't play out too well if my history serves me well.

 

[Satya]

You mistake my isolationist views for supporting theirs, tis not the case, but the tendency of the US to interfere in everything will always be based on such, every international action for whatever underlining cause will be based off of such.

If the world decides to forcible change theirs, then it happens, good for the people, though my stake in the matter is not that great.

My fear in the matter is a loss of national sovereignty to world bodies.

An isolationist? I didn't think such a thing existed anymore. In fact, I figured knowledge of history and the rampant increase of globalism would have eradicated such delusions by the 21st century.

It doesn't matter whether America isolates itself. History has shown that the world will come knocking. And for that matter, America can never completely isolate itself because we export ideas and culture. There will always be elements in the world will see that as a threat to their way of life. America has to interfere for the sake of its own survival and it has always had to do so.

 

[Cog]

Realistically, America will not do a damn thing. We do business with countries that have a death penalty for homosexuality every day. Saudi Arabia for one. What America can do and what America should do are entirely different things.



Bullshit. This is an issue of human rights. This has nothing to do with capitalism and trying to assert some sort of slippery slope fallacy that it does is absurd. At best your argument is a red herring.



I find it ironic that you would have little problem with going to Uganda and giving them your money, either as a tourist or business. It sends a very clear message to me that you don't value the basic human rights of homosexuals. Frankly, the response I would have expected from an American capitalist such as yourself would have been something along the lines of, "I would never do business with any US company that does business with Uganda" assuming you actually cared about basic human rights for homosexuals.

Personally, I'll make it a point to find out the name of every US company that does business with Uganda and refuse to do business with them here, and I'll make sure to spread the word to others to do the same. US businesses have no place in such a country. If other countries want to get their hands dirty then they can do so. Apparently we just don't share the same values.

What US tied Uganda companies do I support? I never stated my fiscal ideology.

From my expressed isolationist views, you make a lot of assumptions on me, have a plan for what I should say or type, I am quite able to play devil's advocate, I can see and understand your views and line of thinking, nothing wrong with them, though, I am an isolationist, sorry if this upsets you, somehow I am going to guess it will not hinder your ability to fight for what you believe in.

 

[Satya]

What US tied Uganda companies do I support? I never stated my fiscal ideology.

As I said, I was only stating the response I would have anticipated. It's clear that you wouldn't have any problem giving them your money, so by extention, I am making the assumption you would have no problem doing business with any US company that does business with them. As you stated...

"It wouldn't be a factor that would prevent me from traveling to the country."

From my expressed isolationist views, you make a lot of assumptions on me, have a plan for what I should say or type, I am quite able to play devil's advocate, I can see and understand your views and line of thinking, nothing wrong with them, though, I am an isolationist, sorry if this upsets you, somehow I am going to guess it will not hinder your ability to fight for what you believe in.

It does not upset me that you are an isolationist. To the contrary, now that I know how your perception, it is much easier for me to reconcile your judgments.

The isolationist lives under the illusion that inaction is safer than action, and it is that illusion that choosing to do something will always be worse than choosing to do nothing, that I find naive. I cannot be offended by someone who has chosen a perspective that is not supported by evidence or reason. I find it interesting that you think that every example of how America has made things worse by acting in the affairs of other countries is somehow proof that they should not have been involved. Such confirmation bias is a unique thing to observe, particularly when the simple question is asked, when has America's inaction ever not eventually lead to making things worse?

The reality is that action or inaction will inevitably result in some negative consequence, simply because that is the nature of the world. There are those who will choose to do something about it under the principle of trying to make the world a better place, and there are those who will delude themselves into thinking that not acting is any less of a choice than acting, or that the consequences for the former could be any less severe than the consequences for the latter.

 

[Soulful]

Does anyone know what the likely direction is for this bill?

 

[TheLastMohican]

Eliminating a tyrannous leader who gassed his own people? Sounds good to me. We should have done it in the first war.

I'm rather surprised to see you take such a position. Do you think it would be a good practice to just go around overthrowing all the governments that we find too tyrannical for our taste? Or only those small enough to pick on?

 

[Solar Empath]

Ultimately, I agree with Satya, however this thread has been Godwin'd so..

 

[testing]

Re the original post:

Not to make light of serious human rights violations but ... when making travel plans, Satya, you know, South Beach is nice. Go there. Ooooo, or Key West. Great, lovely, very gay-friendly (and really, friendly to everyone, including 6-toed cats.) Screw Uganda, it is probably hideous.

But really, I will immediately stop buying all Ugandan products and give myself 50 lashes for being from the US because somehow this is all our fault. (?) Point being, what are we supposed to do? Nuke the place? Feeling a bit powerless yet appalled at the same time.

 

[TheLastMohican]

Ultimately, I agree with Satya, however this thread has been Godwin'd so..

Not quite. Comparing a position to those of Hitler and the Nazis is not the same as comparing a position to those of neighboring governments who let Hitler and the Nazis do their thing.